Montreal woman fatally attacked by dog in her backyard

Can't imagine having something like this happen in your own back yard. Sad story.

Be interesting to see how Quebec handles the issue of 'dangerous dogs"....a story like this shows the need to have a more robust form of protection for innocent bystanders.

Quote:

---

Farid Benzenati says he was unable to sleep after witnessing a fatal dog attack on his neighbour.

A 55-year-old woman was attacked in Montreal's east end on Wednesday afternoon by what police describe as a pit bull..
Benzenati said he arrived home from work around 5 p.m., and as is his habit, had a quick look outside at the pool in his backyard.
That's when he noticed movement behind the fence.
"I saw a big dog that appeared to be playing with a large object. I looked closer and saw that the object was really big," he said.
His fear mounting, Benzenati moved closer.
"That's when I saw hair," he said. "It was hard to see, but I knew it was a woman's body."
He yelled his neighbour's name, but there was no reply.
"I saw blood, and the dog was still attacking her," he said.
Benzenati then ran back into his house and called police.
He described his neighbour as "very nice, always smiling" and said she lived alone.
The dog was new to the neighbourhood, he said. It was only in the past few days that he'd heard it barking.
Officers shoot, kill dog
Police believe the dog may have gone through a hole in the fence from a neighbouring yard.
"When they arrived in the backyard, there was the dog that was pretty aggressive towards police officers," said Montreal police Const. Jean-Pierre Brabant.
Officers had to shoot and kill the dog in order to reach the woman safely, Brabant said.
"Unfortunately, that lady was pronounced dead on site."
Brabant said it appeared the dog's owner wasn't home at the time of the attack.
Montreal police have now found and spoken with the owner of a dog, which they said was a pit bull.
Const. Benoit Boisselle said later Wednesday the 27-year-old man could face charges of criminal negligence.
An autopsy will be performed on the victim to confirm the cause of her death.
Plan for 'dangerous dogs'
The incident comes on the heels of a City of Montreal plan to overhaul rules regarding "dangerous dogs."
Last month, the city said it wants to come up with regulations for all 19 boroughs but wouldn't say if it's leaning toward an all-out ban on any particular breed.
A spokesperson for Coun. Anie Samson, who is responsible for the file, called Wednesday's attack a "tragic event" and said her office was following the situation closely.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/police-loc...506.html?nhp=1

---

Ya the answer is get rid of pit bulls. That would stop probably 99% of fatalities by dogs.

If you google dog attacks in NA. People might be surprised to discover that many, many breeds.... Even lap dogs have fatally killed their owners...... I liken pit bulls, and before them dobermans, and before them German Sheppards to "black gun syndrome"..blame the thing, not the handlers.

kind of ironic, that earlier this week I thought of mentioning dog attacks/maulings/fatalities in the "what gun to carry while partridge hunting thread. Because statistically speaking more people are maimed/killed by dogs, than bears every year.

yet oddly, people don't feel the need to carry guns or shoot dogs to protect themselves, and yet more people are maimed by dogs.../perspective

sad story no matter what.

Que the pitbull are not dangerous regulars........:ninja:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Gunner

Ya the answer is get rid of pit bulls. That would stop probably 99% of fatalities by dogs.

---

Probably not 99% but would certainly save many lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

yet oddly, people don't feel the need to carry guns or shoot dogs to protect themselves, and yet more people are maimed by dogs.../perspective

sad story no matter what.

---

sad, yes. if we are not allowed for self-defensive use of firearms. Then carry a 3 inch folding pocket knife as a "tool" and use it as a last resort of defense against aggressive dogs. better have it and not need it; rather than not have it and then need it.

If the dog caused the death, I hope the guy goes to jail. He knew he had an animal that was trouble and failed to ensure it got nowhere near people.

The lawyer of the man whose pitbull killed a 55-year-old female neighbour in Montreal says her client had tried to address the dog’s aggressive behaviour, after more than one previous attack.

Audrey Amzallag said her client, Franklin Junior Frontal, told her the dog had “attacked a gentleman on his jacket” outside a convenience store, and that in a separate incident the dog attacked Frontal’s cousin, leaving him with bites on his arms and legs.
The cousin had come “out of nowhere to deposit a bag” and the dog “thought that it was a robber,” Amzallag added.

Frontal sought help from the SPCA and in online forums to “avoid the dog being alone and more aggressive,” Amzallag said.


http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/pitbull...wyer-1.2941147

Clearly this dog needs to be put down immediately. I would sue the owner into a lifetime of poverty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

I liken pit bulls, and before them dobermans, and before them German Sheppards to "black gun syndrome"..blame the thing, not the handlers.

---

Perhaps I misunderstand what you're trying to say, but any dog breed capable of killing a human is a dangerous weapon and needs to be treated as such, this includes bans, licensing or whaterver. You're probably exaggerating saying lap dogs kill...
Yes pits, gsd, dobs, rottweilers etc are all dangerous breeds, esp in the wrong hands. If the owners cannot protect the public from their dogs, it's the government job to do it, unless we're to revert to wild wide west.

Terry, the dog was shot already.

You could have checked it yourself. But here's one compilation. Do we start banning chiiuawawas, daschunds and more......
http://images.bimedia.net/documents/...breed+2012.pdf

while Pit bulls and Rotties lead the pack. Do we muzzle, ban Huskys and German Sheppards as well....
http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-sta...ities-2015.php

What about bites/maulings? So it only counts if the person is killed? Tell that to the parents of a 1 or 2 year old who is disfigured for life by a "lap dog".

Dont get me wrong, I'm well aware what breeds are the "most dangerous". I (my daughter) owns one of them (American Staff). He's one of the more gentle dogs I've ever known. In fact compared to the poodle we owned years ago, he's downright docile... His name is knuckles, or "old man". Gets along sweetly with our Malamute, schipperke, chiuawa, and my GFs Yorkie and Chiuawawa. Yes at times my house resembles a zoo with 6 dogs. 2 very large mean black dogs, and 4 lap dogs.

Weve also had a wolf in the house........

Most often, it's the owner ( obviously the case here), not the dog.
.........

The other point was in relation to bear attacks and people wanting self defence....more, way more people are mauled and killed by dogs every year.

raise your hand if your nervous around dogs.

I see it's silly season here again.

Fact: certain breeds are provably more inclined to aggressive behavior than others. The dogma that all breeds are the same is not supported by evidence.

Fact: the probability of serious injury or death in any given dog attack correlates with the size of the dog involved.

Posting a list of dog-related fatalities compiled from open news sources doesn't change these facts, particularly when that list includes as "dog-attack-related" deaths from other causes arising out of a dog bite incident. There is a significant difference between an attack in which a dog mauls the victim to death, and an attack in which the victim dies of a head injury caused when he falls from his bicycle after a dog inflicts a superficial bite.

That list includes:
- an elderly woman who died of complications from a broken hip caused when an Airedale knocked her down. There is no evidence the Airedale was acting aggressively.
- a child who died of strangulation caused by a beagle pulling on a leash wrapped around the child's neck. There is no evidence the beagle was acting aggressively.
- a man who died of injuries he received after he collided with a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel while riding his bike. There is no evidence the spaniel was acting aggressively.
- a child who died of injuries after falling from his bike after suffering a superficial bite from a chihuahua.
- a man who died of an infection caused by a bite from a coonhound.
- a man who died of a heart attack following an unspecified incident involving an East Highland terrier.
- a woman who died of a heart attack after being bitten by a West Highland terrier. Apparently, highland terriers are a serious risk factor in fatal heart attacks.
- a child who died of strangulation caused by a Golden Retriever pulling on a scarf. No evidence the dog was being aggressive.
- a man who died of infection following a superficial bite from a JRT.
- a man who died after tripping over an old English sheepdog and being bitten; it is not established whether he died from the bite, the fall, or the cardiac event he suffered just before he fell.

These are not maulings. There is a significant difference not only in the number of fatalities and serious injuries caused by "[COLOR=#333333]chiiuawawas, daschunds and more" and those caused by large dogs, but also in the nature of the incidents. It is obvious that all dogs do not, in fact, present an equal risk, and the report you posted does not pretend this is true.

Indeed, if you proceed to read the analysis that follows, you'll run into this remark: "it is sheer foolishness to encourage people to regard pit bull terriers and Rottweilers as just dogs like any other, no matter how much they may behave like other dogs under ordinary circumstances ... Pit bulls and Rottweilers ... must be regulated with special requirements appropriate to the risk they may pose to the public and other animals, if they are to be kept at all."

When we have one breed group (pit bulls) behind 82% of fatal dog attacks in a given year (2015), and when adding just two more breeds accounts for 97% of fatal dog attacks, it is not too difficult to determine where the problem lies, and it's disingenuous to pretend that it's a complicated question.

The far more difficult question is what steps might be taken to deal with that problem.

Thank you, welsh, I knew you'd chime in :)

A terrible and preventable death.

Hog hunt with them one time and nobody would own "pet" PBs.

That doesn't infer that government should dictate property ownership........

That was perfect Welsh. Very well said

Lol, except Welsh, you could have saved yourself a lot typing, and a lot superiority complex, if you had simply read the links. Which you obviously didn't in your haste to prove nothing. because at the bottom, it basically says many of the same things. In fact goes further than your expert analysis and looks at some trends with respect to ages of victims. Well you did but
/whoosh

And the fact that the same link shows the cold hard stats that in ways resembles gun deaths in the U.S. (Aka PBTs are leaps and bounds). Aka not sure how anyone can defend such cold hard statistics...both links actually....however that said all dogs are quite capable (even labs are kinda up there) and the most common victims...the elderly and the very young...so your "size" arguement loses some traction. Doesn't take a large dog to do serious harm to toddlers, again if you weren't in such a haste to show your "expertise"...

show ow me for example one instance where it was suggested as you said in your diatribe to exert your intelligence and expertise (lol) that "present an equal risk". That was never even remotely suggested. Quite the leap that.

lmao at you. If that were the case why the hell would I put up stats that blow a mile wide hole in any such suggestion.....
.
if you go back I suggested people should google it to see that many breeds including lap dogs have ...someone was too lazy and accused me of "exaggerating". Clearly I wasn't

yes silly (you) season indeed.

/boggle

Oh and just on the off chance.
1) what's the response when a dog (any breed) bites people.
2) especially children.
3) what didn't this owner do

4) read the analysis on why GS aren't as high any more. Then ask yourself if we want to profile. What kind of people "typically" get PBTs. So it's a bit of a slippery slope, but ultimately is it the dog, or the owner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

Lol, except Welsh, you could have saved yourself a lot typing, and a lot superiority complex, if you had simply read the links. Which you obviously didn't in your haste to prove nothing. because at the bottom, it basically says many of the same things.

---

I actually quoted the last paragraph. All the examples I cited were drawn from your links. I guess you didn't read my post, or the document you linked, with sufficient care to notice that.

The bottom line is, the documents you link to clearly suggest that there is a problem related to specific breeds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

...however that said all dogs are quite capable (even labs are kinda up there)...

---

The articles you link to actually suggest that all dogs are not quite capable, else we would see mauling deaths involving chihuahuas and Cavalier King Charles spaniels, which we do not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

...and the most common victims...[the elderly and the very young...so your "size" arguement loses some traction.

---

I didn't make a "size argument." I cited a fact: that the severity of injury and the probability of death correlates with the size of the dog involved in the attack. That a small dog is capable of injuring a small child does not affect this correlation in the least.

Have you said that all dogs present an equal risk? Not explicitly. However, you have consistently exaggerated the risks presented by small dogs while downplaying the risks posed by pit bulls. You are making a disingenuous argument.

What are the options when it comes to regulating dogs?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-pit-bull-dangerous-dog-law-1.3630979

Typical welsh, in your rush to be God and demonstrate your superiority complex.
/whoosh



and further too "smart" cough cough to know when your in the wrong and not man enough to say "oops" my bad. For putting words in people's mouths, taking tones "silly season" and more . Even to dumb to realize as I said "why the hell would I use stats that...... For such a smart person you are often way off base, and looking rather not.

Not defending the breed, though I blame people more.
go through the list, look at some of the more common breeds. As I said to the same person. Are we only counting attacks that end in fatalities. Tell that to the parents of young kids........and my first post was to the effect of people might be surprised at how many breeds..and yes even "lap dogs"....if you want to make a fool of yourself even further and argue that small dogs, or lap dogs are incapable of seriously harming toddlers and more. Nothing I can say.

not so smart after all Welsh.

I would pass a law where owners are legally responsible for any and all expense related to an attack from their dogs. This would include paramedics, police, animal control, everything. If people got handed a $18k bill because their wonderful family dog decided to jump the fence and viciously attack a person or animal they might rethink their choice of pets. You can't fix stupid but even they understand money.

Bingo Terry. Until and unless laws are passed that crack down hard on owners. This attack (and many others) was more than preventable. The dog should have been put down long ago. Am willing to bet the owner is of a shall we say, certain "profile"

Fad dogs, be they PBTs or Rotties and before them Dobermans (which got a decidedly bad reputation but they sure looked mean) and before them GSs (see the links analysis on that breed)...and and "black dog syndrome" is also very real. Ask anyone that owns/runs a rescue...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

I would pass a law where owners are legally responsible for any and all expense related to an attack from their dogs. This would include paramedics, police, animal control, everything. If people got handed a $18k bill because their wonderful family dog decided to jump the fence and viciously attack a person or animal they might rethink their choice of pets. You can't fix stupid but even they understand money.

---

1000.00 dollars a stitch.
2000.00 dollars a stitch above the shoulders.
Can't pay ??
Go to jail !!
If the dog kills someone you go to jail.
No I'm sorry.
No I didn't know .... Blah blah blah.
And I am against breed specific legislation.
But I'm for people being held responsible.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

Are we only counting attacks that end in fatalities.

---

No, I am not. Apparently, you did not read my post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

...and yes even "lap dogs"....if you want to make a fool of yourself even further and argue that small dogs, or lap dogs are incapable of seriously harming toddlers and more.

---

Fact: the severity of injuries correlates with the size of the dog.

You are making arguments based on what can happen. I am making arguments based on what does happen, and on how often it happens.

So, no: we do not have to ban chihuahuas. That is not a logical consequence of regulating pit bulls, and it is not something there is any reasonable argument for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

I would pass a law where owners are legally responsible for any and all expense related to an attack from their dogs.

---

Not sure about Quebec but in Ontario, dog owners already bear absolute liability. The problem is that nobody thinks his dog will cause a problem, so general deterrence does not work here.

Suing the idiot who owned this dog blind, or even putting him in jail (and I would say, arguably, that criminal negligence could apply) will not bring the victim back to life. If we want to prevent incidents we need effective regulations. But as MikePal's last post shows, those are pretty hard to come up with.

I believe that when you have a dog - any breed- you are responsible for the safety of others. Don't assume that responsibility and the penalty should be meaningful.

I like to rescue JRTs for the challenge, and to give them a real chance to make it. MANY end up in animal shelters because folks buy them as a cute pup, but don't have the experience to manage them.
I give it my best effort, but sometimes have to put one down due to uncontrollable aggressiveness.

One I have now is just fine off leash , in the dog park, running with the setter etc. , but must be muzzled when I have company and when we go on a walk. If I don't do that , and someone gets bit, it is MY responsibility and I suffer the consequences of that poor choice not to muzzle.

You have a dog? You're responsible for the safety of others.

Interesting comments from BC's SPCA on Dangerous Dog legislation;

Quote:

---

BREED SPECIFIC LEGISLATION


The BC SPCA opposes breed specific legislation
as a strategy for reducing inappropriate aggression and dog bites for the following reasons:

Breed specific legislation ignores the fact that aggressive behaviour can occur in
any breed and therefore does not protect the public.

There are no efficient methods to determine a dog's breed in a way that can
withstand legal challenge or be a foolproof method for deciding whether a
guardian is in compliance or violation of laws. Any breed ban bylaw inevitably
results in the creation of subjective, arbitrary factors to determine breed.

Popularity of breeds changes over time --what is identified as a "dangerous
breed" today, may be different tomorrow. Some countries with breed laws now
have upwards of 30 breeds on record, all of which require enforcement.

People who want aggressive dogs simply switch to another breed or select a
cross-breed that cannot effectively be identified as belonging to or looking like a
specific breed. Breed specific restrictions in bylaws do nothing to discourage
irresponsible behaviour by individual s who breed, train, sell or possess
dangerous dogs not covered by the breed specific legislation.

There is no reliable way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed in the
canine population at any given time making financial planning for enforcement of breed legislation nearly impossible.

Breed specific legislation treads upon the rights of responsible dog guardians
who cherish a non-aggressive pet whose breed may fall under the legislation.
Conversely, the guardian of an aggressive pet whose breed does not fall within
the legislation will not be subject to appropriate legislative remedies.
http://www.spca.bc.ca/assets/documents/welfare/position-statements/dangerous-dogs.pdf

---

JBen & Welsh - Why don't you carry on your yearly feud via private message so I don't have to scroll by to read other opinions.
I like pitbulls but won't support them in circumstances like this.
My main comment is this guy coming home - seeing a pitbull mauling a women and runs in the house to call for help. Personally I would have been on that dog so fast to assist this woman.
Sad, sad story.

I hate them littel jack Russell and would rather face a Shepard rottys.lol or pit bull any day I went to a old buddy's place and he had a few of them little devil's running around .the littel suckers would jump up and bite you ever chance thy got.i had three cuts in my fingers after I left his place.

If JRT's weren't so small they would be dangerous. Little buggers are nuts.

Well Roper, while that might be ideal, some have a rather long history of inflaming post threads, belittling people, or attempting to...lol, especially when its unnecessary...too funny given....the stats were posted for a couple reasons....None of which were to "defend PBTs", quite the opposite, but I guess when someone is on a mission with a bone to chew.......Silly season indeed.

Perhaps if the day ever comes Mods.....
And back peddling apparently, or at the least being unable to recognize sarcasm and instead is putting words in peoples mouths..yet again...."[COLOR=#333333]So, no: we do not have to ban chihuahuas. That is not a logical consequence of regulating pit bulls, and it is not something there is any reasonable argument for."

Never said we should ban Chihuahuas. Is sarcasm lost.....

That said, if you peruse both links ( I can't be bothered to go back in order to humour you Welsh) so I hope I will be granted a wee bit of latitude, instead of attitude.

Huskies are #2 or #3 on the list of fatal attacks. Not exactly large dogs are they?????

Some might deem them smallish or medium. I can think a couple dozen larger dogs that rarely attack people, let alone fatally.....You were saying......and Im sure the survivors of Husky attacks might also disagree with you..........

And the point then was "People should google the list of breeds, some might be surprised by the breeds"......and yes even lap dogs.....6 pretty severe attacks by Dachshunds that year ;)

Actually decided to humour you Welsh. Heres another...if we throw PBTs and Rotties out with the dirty bath water.

Chows also way up there. 54 attacks, 36 maimings, 7 fatalities...Not exactly a large breed.
Boxers also way up there..48 attacks, 20 and 5...also not exactly a large dog.
Dogo ( Gilroys large killer breed)...2 attacks
Akita a large breed dog...65 attacks 48 and 8...more attacks yet marginally fewer fatalities. or about the same as both Chows and Boxers....you were saying......

What was I saying?

You seem to have missed the point entirely.

Oh, and for the record: I'm not the person making repeated personal attacks on this thread.

Crying having started it Welsh?
You really should learn how to be accountable for your actions/words.
Lets see taking tones and "silly season"
Putting words in people mouths in order to make some non existent point.
more...

Your point was that the severity of attacks is directly related to the size of dogs.
Compare Rotties to Cane Corsos or Great Danes or St Bernards....Now compare Huskies and Chows (small once you get past all the hair..lol)

Ever hear of a word called temperament? Or the Cliche "Its not the size of dog in a fight"

Now, going forward. Hopefully people will recognize that statistically Rotties and PBTs are a problem. But some breeds might surprise people...like Chows and Huskys...Not exactly large breeds. Their temperaments and "owners"...

C'mon folks, nobody knows as much as JBen on any topic discussed here or anywhere for that matter. So we'll give him the last word on the subject and close the thread with this comment from pit bull owners, "I just don't understand why my dog attacked. She was always so gentle".

.........................